An “Impartial Jury”

Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. . .”

Questions:
1. What does the term “impartial” mean? Not judging without information
2. Does a juror have to have no knowledge of a crime to be impartial? Yes and no but really no because you need to know the story of the case
3. How might attorneys strive to make sure jury members are impartial? By asking questions

Making of a Jury: The Voir Dire Process

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees an accused person an “impartial jury.” The interpretation of what
“impartial” means has changed over time. While juries were once made up of all white males, now courts require a “jury of peers.”
This phrase has come to mean that a jury must come from a pool representing a reasonable cross-section of the local community.

To achieve an impartial jury, a process called voir dire takes place to determine which of the many people called for jury service on a
particular day (the “jury pool”) will actually make up the jury. Voir dire is a French term meaning “to speak the truth.” Attorneys from
both sides question the
jury pool to try to detect bias and partiality. While this process is often referred to as jury selection, this is actually misleading because
jurors are removed from a potential jury, not selected to be on it. Attorneys are permitted to “strike” potential jurors from the jury pool
by challenging them.

There are two types of challenges: challenges “for cause” and peremptory strikes. Challenges for cause may be used when there is an
articulable (able to be expressed clearly) reason that the juror may be biased for or against either party. For instance, a recent victim of
rape would likely be challenged for cause in a rape trial because of the difficulty they might have being objective in the case. The trial
judge decides if the reason the attorney has given is enough to strike the juror. Each attorney has unlimited challenges for cause.
Peremptory strikes are used by attorneys to eliminate jurors whom they feel might not favor their side of the case, but the reasoning
does not amount to a for cause challenge. Peremptory strikes are limited to a number agreed upon by both sides before voir dire
begins and do not need the judge’s permission.

There have been abuses of the peremptory strikes by some attorneys who have struck potential jurors because of their race, ethnicity,
or gender. This practice was ruled unconstitutional based on the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of an impartial jury and the 14th
Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. If it can be proven that an attorney struck jurors from the pool solely because of their race,
ethnicity, or gender, a Batson Challenge, named for the case Batson v. Kentucky (1986), may be raised by the opposing party. Once the
Batson Challenge is made, the prosecutor is required to proffer, or submit the reasons for, their peremptory challenges to the judge,
who decides if there was discrimination. After conviction, the defendant can appeal if there is proof that the judge erred in not finding
discrimination. If the appeal is upheld, the accused may receive a new trial.

Questions:

1. Other than the examples given in the reading above, what are two situations that might amount to a challenge for
cause? Abuse and driving under the influence
2. What are two situations where an attorney might use a peremptory challenge? Race hate crime and if they know the person
personally
Voir Dire Questioning Tips

Attorneys compose questions to be asked of all potential jurors in the jury pool. For some trials attorneys for both sides submit
questions to be included in a jury questionnaire that potential jurors will complete before the attorneys question them.
Questions during voir dire should uncover reasons that jurors might be biased for or against either party.
Questions might ask about:
● past experiences similar to the case at hand
● conflicts of interest such as working, socializing, being a member of the same organizations as the defendant (or
plaintiff in a civil suit)
● occupations that may make it difficult to be impartial, like being a police officer or an attorney
● marital status and children
● prior experiences with the criminal justice system
● knowledge or exposure to media coverage of the crime
● acquaintances/relations to parties in the case (including judge and attorneys)
● views on the death penalty
● views on law enforcement
● views on the presumption of innocence
 Courtroom Set-up for Voir Dire:

Scenario: Emma Lee, a high school senior at Our Town High School who recently turned 18, was identified as the prime suspect in
the theft of laptops and cell phones from students and faculty members. She is also accused of reselling the equipment to students at a
nearby college, State University.

Questions:

1. What characteristics would a juror who might be struck for cause in Emma Lee’s case have?
if they've been the victim of theft or if they've been the thief
2. Compose three questions you would ask the jury to try to discover those characteristics. I will call on students to share their
questions.
1. Have you ever worked at an electronic store before
2. Have you ever attend college(if so which one)
3.Have you ever been the victim or know someone who has been the victim of theft